ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2020
Intra- and inter-rater reliability in the cross-sectional area of feline lumbar epaxial musculature evaluated via abdominal CT scan.
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of epaxial muscle cross-sectional area measurement on feline CT images and to determine the relationship between normalized epaxial muscle area (EMA) and subjective muscle condition score (MCS).
methodsFeline transverse CT images including the junction of the 13th thoracic vertebrae/13th rib head were retrospectively reviewed. Right and left epaxial muscle circumference and vertebral body height were measured and an average normalized EMA (ratio of epaxial area:vertebral height) was calculated for each image. Measurements were performed by three individuals blinded to the clinical data and were repeated 1 month later. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of EMA was assessed with concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess bias and limits of agreement (LoA) between and within observers at different time points. In cats for which MCS data were available, EMA was compared between differing MCSs via the Kruskal-Wallis test, with Bonferroni-corrected Wilcoxon rank-sum post-hoc analysis.
resultsIn total, 101 CT scans met the inclusion criteria for reliability analysis, 29 of which had muscle condition information available for analysis. Intra-rater EMA CCC ranged from 0.84 to 0.99 with minimal bias (range -0.16 to 0.08) and narrow LoA. Inter-rater EMA CCC ranged from 0.87 to 0.94, bias was larger (range -0.46 to 0.66) and LoA were wider when assessed between observers. Median EMA was significantly lower in cats with severe muscle atrophy (2.76, range 1.28-3.96) than in all other MCS groups ( CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Measurement of EMA on CT showed strong intra-rater reliability, and median EMA measurements were significantly lower in cats with severe muscle wasting, as assessed on physical examination. Further studies correlating EMA to lean muscle mass in cats are needed to determine whether this method may be useful to quantify muscle mass in patients undergoing a CT scan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.